![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The "Explanation" section of this entry appears to be based, not on original research, but on original speculation. Older sources aren't necessarily more accurate; see the works of Geoffrey of Monmouth. Moreover, citing possibilities but not supporting them via arguments or evidence is a meaningless exercise. And being able to explain some known circumstance via an original theory does *not* prove that theory is valid. History is full of known circumstances that can be explained via dozens or even hundreds of different explanations. For example, any papal election can be explained via the theory that the College of Cardinals is being telepathically manipulated by intelligent bees from Venus. Coming up with an explanation that's simple, elegant, coherent, and covers all the known data is no guarantee whatsoever that it isn't dead wrong. 67.244.76.130 ( talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)TNH
I am not pretty sure about the association between "radegast" and "dear guest". My first impression is that "geist" in german means "spirit", which sounds like "ghost".
I have no idea about the word "rade" but in my opinion this sounds like: "dear spirit" --
Amurdad (
talk)
13:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Gast,geist, guest and the slavic gost (гост) have same roots and probably maned one and same thing in ancient times. It is connected with Gospod,( "Господ" from gost-guest + pati- father the exact latin etymology is Hostpis > Host) in all Slavic languages in Latin means "God", but this God is not the Jesus Christ rather an old poor man who appears in houses like a guest in late evenings and asks for bread or coach to sleep or some sort of food and then leaves in the morning leaving some good deeds to his host.( The conection with food or eating is probably conected with the same slavic root for feast, eating, *gostiti гощавка) Some pried for this guest to come and in Bulgaria the hospitality was a must when you can not ever return a stranger on your doorstep. In villages today the tradition to this Good guest is still alive and villagers meet some strangers coming to their village with bread and salt.
Someone please fix the English in this article. pschemp | talk 20:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Ardagast is considered to be mistranslation or fading error or mistyping over the centuries of the words Ragbiga (Ragbina, Ranbona) , Kanbinah, Ragbib, Adzîgher (Adzhigardak?) from the book of genesis for the nations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Togarmah the similarities in all these words are obvious with the person or tribe which is considered to be a Bulgarian/Hunni /Ungar tribe Aldigar/Altsek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.211.25 ( talk) 08:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I consider Chupito's recent restoration of a text removed from the article in 2011 an act of vandalism but instead of reverting, I used the templates so that other may voice their opinions. In any case, the article needs proper references. WikiHannibal ( talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Here I copy Chupito's point of view form both my and his talk page so that disussion pertaining to this article can be accessible for future editors:
Since there seems to be relatively few sources available, I have decided to list them here. Feel free to edit and add to the list. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 19:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Sławobóg, the subsection of the "Legend of Radhošť" seems quite OK and easy to check using your online sources, nevertheless I have not found, at p. 28-29, the source for your wording "although the tale has been debunked many times by historians, it still appears in some authors and folklore". Especially concerning the (weasel) words in bold. Could you please quote here where we can found that? I suppose the subsection could be added to the article, as a start. Thanks, WikiHannibal ( talk) 13:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I have not found, at p. 28-29, the source for your wording "although the tale has been debunked many times by historians, it still appears in some authors and folklore"Last sentence: "Toto vyprávění bylo sice již mnohokrát vyvráceno, nicméně zapříčinilo vznik celého množství projevů jak v lidové slovesnosti, tak autorské tvorbě." Better wording could be good but the sentence is sourced. If the word "historians" bothers you, I may link to the history page where this word is used in the same context. Sławobóg ( talk) 16:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Another problem is that "still appears" - it looks as if some modern authors (perhaps even scholars?) and present-day folklore (whatever may that be) continue to develop the legend.Can you read the paper again? "Velká část (převážně popularizačních) textů o Radhošti tak i dnes začíná právě zmínkou o Radegastově legendě." What author means is that the legend was debunked but it is still is being used in fiction, popular publications and folklore. This is how I understand it - there is no word "before" there. From the context of the entire chapter, it appears that this legend has been debunked by historians ("Její důležitost trefně vystihuje text na webových stránkách Matice Radhošťské, kde se o existenci domnělého Radegastova kultu píše, že „dnes už žádný seriózní historik nebere takováto vyprávění vážně"), because who else? Sławobóg ( talk) 21:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
What I was suspicios of was the way you use the sources, too much interpretation close to original research, perhaps using only certain sources, etc.Excuse me? If you think so, you're just proving that you have no idea about the topic you're getting into. Sławobóg ( talk) 21:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
another example is what I mentioned in my edit summary: do you consider Pitro & Vokáč a good enough source to comment on etymology?I didn't use them for etymology. I used them for meaning of the name that is clear to all Slavic people. If that is so problematic, I can use Smitek's translation. Not a problem for me. However, it's funny that you see a credibility problem here, but you don't see a credibility problem in describing the appearance of a deity by the authors focused on describing the fiction by Tolkien.
Did you find in older edits that I added Hudec to the article in the first place?you reverted removal of this nonsense. If reverted for other reason, why didn't you remove that source yet? Sławobóg ( talk) 21:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Following up on being pinged here, there's an easy solution to the problems we're seeing on this article: We need to stick to peer-reviewed sources from acacedemics, namely folklorists, philologists, and other specialists. These are the highest possible quality sources we can use, and we need to be seeking these out. Additionally, while it may be annoying, it is in your best interest to find English language material from scholars, which will make it very easy for most readers to verify. This is how we've gotten many of our Norse mythology-related articles to the high quality state that they're currently in. Additionally, many readers will find it very useful to split the article into an "attestations" section followed by a "reception" section, where one can separate what the record actually says over how it has been received by scholarship. This is how specialist tertiary sources generally handle these topics. Right now this article is in a dubious state and needs a lot of work. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The "Explanation" section of this entry appears to be based, not on original research, but on original speculation. Older sources aren't necessarily more accurate; see the works of Geoffrey of Monmouth. Moreover, citing possibilities but not supporting them via arguments or evidence is a meaningless exercise. And being able to explain some known circumstance via an original theory does *not* prove that theory is valid. History is full of known circumstances that can be explained via dozens or even hundreds of different explanations. For example, any papal election can be explained via the theory that the College of Cardinals is being telepathically manipulated by intelligent bees from Venus. Coming up with an explanation that's simple, elegant, coherent, and covers all the known data is no guarantee whatsoever that it isn't dead wrong. 67.244.76.130 ( talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)TNH
I am not pretty sure about the association between "radegast" and "dear guest". My first impression is that "geist" in german means "spirit", which sounds like "ghost".
I have no idea about the word "rade" but in my opinion this sounds like: "dear spirit" --
Amurdad (
talk)
13:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Gast,geist, guest and the slavic gost (гост) have same roots and probably maned one and same thing in ancient times. It is connected with Gospod,( "Господ" from gost-guest + pati- father the exact latin etymology is Hostpis > Host) in all Slavic languages in Latin means "God", but this God is not the Jesus Christ rather an old poor man who appears in houses like a guest in late evenings and asks for bread or coach to sleep or some sort of food and then leaves in the morning leaving some good deeds to his host.( The conection with food or eating is probably conected with the same slavic root for feast, eating, *gostiti гощавка) Some pried for this guest to come and in Bulgaria the hospitality was a must when you can not ever return a stranger on your doorstep. In villages today the tradition to this Good guest is still alive and villagers meet some strangers coming to their village with bread and salt.
Someone please fix the English in this article. pschemp | talk 20:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Ardagast is considered to be mistranslation or fading error or mistyping over the centuries of the words Ragbiga (Ragbina, Ranbona) , Kanbinah, Ragbib, Adzîgher (Adzhigardak?) from the book of genesis for the nations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Togarmah the similarities in all these words are obvious with the person or tribe which is considered to be a Bulgarian/Hunni /Ungar tribe Aldigar/Altsek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.211.25 ( talk) 08:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I consider Chupito's recent restoration of a text removed from the article in 2011 an act of vandalism but instead of reverting, I used the templates so that other may voice their opinions. In any case, the article needs proper references. WikiHannibal ( talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Here I copy Chupito's point of view form both my and his talk page so that disussion pertaining to this article can be accessible for future editors:
Since there seems to be relatively few sources available, I have decided to list them here. Feel free to edit and add to the list. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 19:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Sławobóg, the subsection of the "Legend of Radhošť" seems quite OK and easy to check using your online sources, nevertheless I have not found, at p. 28-29, the source for your wording "although the tale has been debunked many times by historians, it still appears in some authors and folklore". Especially concerning the (weasel) words in bold. Could you please quote here where we can found that? I suppose the subsection could be added to the article, as a start. Thanks, WikiHannibal ( talk) 13:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I have not found, at p. 28-29, the source for your wording "although the tale has been debunked many times by historians, it still appears in some authors and folklore"Last sentence: "Toto vyprávění bylo sice již mnohokrát vyvráceno, nicméně zapříčinilo vznik celého množství projevů jak v lidové slovesnosti, tak autorské tvorbě." Better wording could be good but the sentence is sourced. If the word "historians" bothers you, I may link to the history page where this word is used in the same context. Sławobóg ( talk) 16:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Another problem is that "still appears" - it looks as if some modern authors (perhaps even scholars?) and present-day folklore (whatever may that be) continue to develop the legend.Can you read the paper again? "Velká část (převážně popularizačních) textů o Radhošti tak i dnes začíná právě zmínkou o Radegastově legendě." What author means is that the legend was debunked but it is still is being used in fiction, popular publications and folklore. This is how I understand it - there is no word "before" there. From the context of the entire chapter, it appears that this legend has been debunked by historians ("Její důležitost trefně vystihuje text na webových stránkách Matice Radhošťské, kde se o existenci domnělého Radegastova kultu píše, že „dnes už žádný seriózní historik nebere takováto vyprávění vážně"), because who else? Sławobóg ( talk) 21:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
What I was suspicios of was the way you use the sources, too much interpretation close to original research, perhaps using only certain sources, etc.Excuse me? If you think so, you're just proving that you have no idea about the topic you're getting into. Sławobóg ( talk) 21:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
another example is what I mentioned in my edit summary: do you consider Pitro & Vokáč a good enough source to comment on etymology?I didn't use them for etymology. I used them for meaning of the name that is clear to all Slavic people. If that is so problematic, I can use Smitek's translation. Not a problem for me. However, it's funny that you see a credibility problem here, but you don't see a credibility problem in describing the appearance of a deity by the authors focused on describing the fiction by Tolkien.
Did you find in older edits that I added Hudec to the article in the first place?you reverted removal of this nonsense. If reverted for other reason, why didn't you remove that source yet? Sławobóg ( talk) 21:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Following up on being pinged here, there's an easy solution to the problems we're seeing on this article: We need to stick to peer-reviewed sources from acacedemics, namely folklorists, philologists, and other specialists. These are the highest possible quality sources we can use, and we need to be seeking these out. Additionally, while it may be annoying, it is in your best interest to find English language material from scholars, which will make it very easy for most readers to verify. This is how we've gotten many of our Norse mythology-related articles to the high quality state that they're currently in. Additionally, many readers will find it very useful to split the article into an "attestations" section followed by a "reception" section, where one can separate what the record actually says over how it has been received by scholarship. This is how specialist tertiary sources generally handle these topics. Right now this article is in a dubious state and needs a lot of work. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)